Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: CIA Successfuly Conceals Bay of Pigs History [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)22. Corporations never have to die. What Vol. III found Dulles told the 'Economic Royalists'...
The Two Stories About the Bay of Pigs You Never Heard
by David M. Barrett
Mr. Barretts new book is The CIA and Congress: The Untold Story from Truman to Kennedy (University Press of Kansas, 2005). He is Associate Professor of Political Science at Villanova University.
EXCERPT...
(2) Days before Christmas 1960, DCI Allen Dulles held an important, and I would say scandalous, meeting in New York. In attendance, Pfeiffer writes, were the Vice President for Latin America of Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Chairman of the Cuban-American Sugar Company, the President of the American Sugar Domino Refining Company, the President of the American & Foreign Power Company, the Chairman of the Freeport Sulphur Company, and representatives from Texaco, International Telephone and Telegraph, and other American companies with business interests in Cuba. The tenor of the conversation was that it was time for the U.S. to get off dead center and take some direct action against Castro.
The corporate leaders had many ideas along these lines for Dulles. They included burning sugar cane fields, ruining refineries, interrupting electric power supplies, and putting an embargo on food and medicines going into Cuba. Dulles opposed the embargo idea and told the corporate leaders that he was not in business of policy planning. That, he probably added, was the job of Higher Authority, i.e, the United States president. He did comment (Pfeiffer writes) that what he was interested in was getting rid of Castro as quickly as possible, and in this field, he had direct responsibility and would welcome any ideas or suggestions on how this might be achieved.
The timing of this meeting was highly sensitive. Republican Eisenhower was soon to exit the presidency, so there was little chance that he would have CIA dislodge Castro (though, as Pfeiffer writes, Ike had insisted that CIA develop effective plans and forces to do so). It was Democrat Kennedy, a proponent of action against Castro during his presidential campaign, who would have to decide whether or not to authorize some version of what CIA had planned. By blabbing to the corporate leaders about wanting to get rid of Castro as soon as possible, Dulles did a disservice to Kennedy. If JFK had chosen in the spring of 1961 not to authorize CIA to invade Cuba, it wouldnt have been just those thousand-plus Cuban exiles who would have charged Kennedy with a cowardly abandonment; some of the corporate leaders surely would have leaked word of the new presidents weakness.
Furthermore, Dulles had endangered CIAs reputationif critics of the Agency had known of this meeting, they would have charged that CIA was (in the words of Dulles own underling, Tracy Barnes) protecting economic royalists. At a minimum, as Pfeiffer writes, corporate interests played a sometimes overactive role in support of the anti-Castro efforts.6
Beyond that, the word covert means secret. At a time when Eisenhower and Kennedy fervently believed (and told Dulles) that secrecy should shroud CIAs Cuba plans, the DCI had been horribly indiscreet.
CONTINUED...
http://hnn.us/article/14951
by David M. Barrett
Mr. Barretts new book is The CIA and Congress: The Untold Story from Truman to Kennedy (University Press of Kansas, 2005). He is Associate Professor of Political Science at Villanova University.
EXCERPT...
(2) Days before Christmas 1960, DCI Allen Dulles held an important, and I would say scandalous, meeting in New York. In attendance, Pfeiffer writes, were the Vice President for Latin America of Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Chairman of the Cuban-American Sugar Company, the President of the American Sugar Domino Refining Company, the President of the American & Foreign Power Company, the Chairman of the Freeport Sulphur Company, and representatives from Texaco, International Telephone and Telegraph, and other American companies with business interests in Cuba. The tenor of the conversation was that it was time for the U.S. to get off dead center and take some direct action against Castro.
The corporate leaders had many ideas along these lines for Dulles. They included burning sugar cane fields, ruining refineries, interrupting electric power supplies, and putting an embargo on food and medicines going into Cuba. Dulles opposed the embargo idea and told the corporate leaders that he was not in business of policy planning. That, he probably added, was the job of Higher Authority, i.e, the United States president. He did comment (Pfeiffer writes) that what he was interested in was getting rid of Castro as quickly as possible, and in this field, he had direct responsibility and would welcome any ideas or suggestions on how this might be achieved.
The timing of this meeting was highly sensitive. Republican Eisenhower was soon to exit the presidency, so there was little chance that he would have CIA dislodge Castro (though, as Pfeiffer writes, Ike had insisted that CIA develop effective plans and forces to do so). It was Democrat Kennedy, a proponent of action against Castro during his presidential campaign, who would have to decide whether or not to authorize some version of what CIA had planned. By blabbing to the corporate leaders about wanting to get rid of Castro as soon as possible, Dulles did a disservice to Kennedy. If JFK had chosen in the spring of 1961 not to authorize CIA to invade Cuba, it wouldnt have been just those thousand-plus Cuban exiles who would have charged Kennedy with a cowardly abandonment; some of the corporate leaders surely would have leaked word of the new presidents weakness.
Furthermore, Dulles had endangered CIAs reputationif critics of the Agency had known of this meeting, they would have charged that CIA was (in the words of Dulles own underling, Tracy Barnes) protecting economic royalists. At a minimum, as Pfeiffer writes, corporate interests played a sometimes overactive role in support of the anti-Castro efforts.6
Beyond that, the word covert means secret. At a time when Eisenhower and Kennedy fervently believed (and told Dulles) that secrecy should shroud CIAs Cuba plans, the DCI had been horribly indiscreet.
CONTINUED...
http://hnn.us/article/14951
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Corporations never have to die. What Vol. III found Dulles told the 'Economic Royalists'...
Octafish
May 2014
#22
E Howard Hunt planted phony cables in a White House safe to implicate JFK in Diem assassinations.
Octafish
May 2014
#14